Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005 Status: offline
|
This turn of this thread has brought up something more. I am sure nobody will respond to me but I would like to add this anyway. The whole idea of insurance, and in some aspectects government brings up a certain point, a very basic point that has been the crux of many of society's problems probably from the dawn of civilization. Within each of us, as well as the whole human race there is a battle, constantly raging right under our noses. It took me decades to realize that sociey's problems are ndivivual in a way, and that individual probelms are society's in a way. It matters not the cause for some aspects of the conversation, however is quite profound. Innate in each and every one of us there is a battle between collectivism and individualism. Society at large simply reflects that trait. Doubt ? Think about it, there are times when you want to be alone, and there are times you desire the company of others. One or the other or both, or do you keep changing your mind ? Simple matter to understand really, but to translate that into a template for the judgement of others' wishes, it should be taken into consideration. So the main struggle here is just what is to be collectivized and what is not. Nobody wants to see hmeless people because of a flood. But it happens. Just how much responsibility do others' bear due to that ? That is the prime debate resolution. Should we say "We'll rebuild you once but not there" ?. Or should we create another money pit like the wars and shit ? Or should we just tell them to fuck off ? Insurance is, in a way, institutionalized charity. However no charity can give out more than it takes in. This is reality. And if you don't look out for number one, who is to look out for number two ? The class war of which I speak from time to time has nothing to do with this. The question is, am I my brother's keeper ? How much responsibility do I presonally have to people who insist on living n high risk places. Should I pay higher rates because of it ? Or shoud they ? Or should nobody and now the insurance companies all go under. It is the same way with everything. Even politics. You now why bipartisan issues will never be resolved ? Because they can't even really on which points they actually disagree, even with their limited power of influence. Puts on a good show though. One can say the liberals are more for the colective while conservatives are more for the individual, but we know that isn't true. That is part of the class war actually and not within the scope of thuis text. Would you insure Evil Knevil, or give a whole life policy to Andre' The Giant ? How about life insurance for the guys on "The Deadliest Catch" ? You you like to insure the future of the US currency by having alot of it, or would you choose not to by diversifying ? And this is where things change. With individualism, people are solely responsible for their own actions, no insurance. Would you rebuild in a flood zone with no insurance ? With insurance the loss is spread among all, and is collectivism and therefore socialism. Is that what you want ? Before you say yes, consider this, if I insure your health, I have the right to control you in certain ways. If I insure your house I have a right to reaquire that wiring is up to snuff and the heating is safe. If I insure your car I have the right to require you to wear seat belts. If I insure your anything, I have the right to make certain requirements, the violation of which is considered abuse or stupidity, and I won't insure against stupidity. That gives me control over you. And if I insure you in a flood zone and have to pay off once, you will be moving, or not having insurance from my company. So collectivism is at bet voluntary and cooperative. It is not at it's best, to say the least. T
|